Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - whartonn

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
71
All he said was that SMU does a better job of training students to pass the bar.  That's all he said.  It isn't idiotic.  He didn't say it's a better law school.

And you're right; SJU does a better job of training students to pass the NY bar than Fordham does (89% to 88%).  It doesn't matter how much higher Fordham is ranked, SJU still does a better job at bar passage.

He didn't say SMU was a better education, he said the students were more equiped to pass the bar and he is right.

It seems to me that SMU is training attourney's better equipped to pass the Texas bar and succeed in Texas, if not better educated attourney's overall.

(a) Looks clear to me that he did say SMU was better at educating and preparing lawyers
(b) Even if it were true that he was simply saying that SMU does a better job of preparing people for the specific task of passing the bar, how is this an argument for SMU being a superior choice? Are you arguing that St. Johns is a superior choice to Fordham because it has a higher bar passage rate in the same state?

I was just trying to give an honest opinion about the situation, but please do feel free to continue to get hot and bothered over the issue.  Yes I indeed said...

It seems to me that SMU is training attourney's better equipped to pass the Texas bar and succeed in Texas, if not better educated attourney's overall

Yes I clearly said that SMU is better suited for training a Texas lawyer, and I gave the possibility that their students may be better educated overall.  Never did I say flatly that SMU was a better school.  Give me a reason why you think WUSTL would better prepare a lawyer to work in Dallas?

What evidence do you have that WUSTL grads pass the Texas bar at a lower rate than SMU grads?

72
If you look at the numbers, I think SMU still makes more sense

the schools have almost identical bar passage rates (SMU 88, WUSTL 90), but the big diference being....The Texas Bar is significantly harder than the Missouri Bar. Texas has 80% passage rate to Missouri's 88%.  WUSTL educations their students 2% higher than the state's average while SMU performs 8% better.  It seems to me that SMU is training attourney's better equipped to pass the Texas bar and succeed in Texas, if not better educated attourney's overall.

And regardless of the "options" of WUSTL, the fact is most graduates do indeed stay in Mizzou.  Also, 98% of all graduates have a job with a median of 85000 from SMU(admittedly 100000 from WUSTL).  But the fact that your wife has a pretty sucessful job in the area and if you would like to practice in Dallas, I dont think you should get scared about people saying that only the top SMU grads get the kind of jobs that they want.  Unless you hear that from a Dallas employer, then I think the numbers speak for themself.

The bar passage logic used by this poster is idiotic. By his logic, St. Johns does a better job of educating their students than Fordham does. By his logic, Florida CoasTTTTal does a better job of educating their students than Florida State.

More importantly, using his logic, OP should be at Baylor and not SMU.

Even more foolish is his use of "employment" numbers. Anyone who knows about law school admissions knows that those numbers are pure puffery and only reflect the limited number of people who respond to the questionnaire.

In this case, the numbers do not at all speak for themselves.


Ok fine if you want to fault the numbers, here is a more objective view of the school choice...

If St. Johns has a higher bar passage rate than fordam, then yes they are doing a better job preparing their graduates, and if Florida Coastal has a better bar passage rate than Florida St. then quite frankly Florida St. should be ashamed. I dont think its idiotic to hold a school accountable to their bar passage rate, and go off more than just an obscure ranking system.

Also location figures promenently in the choice, if you want to practice in Dallas/Texas and you have a great scholarship to a very good school that is almost garunteed to get you a job in that city, in a city where your spouse is very established in her field...why would you go to a school that has no proven presence in the region in which you want to practice.  Numbers aside, wouldnt you rather be taught by professors who are experts in preparing you for the types of legal issues you will encounter in your region?

Getting your foot in the door with local firms and employers is also a big issue.  Dont you think that you would have more access to the firms in Texas if you went to schools in Texas?  And also from what I have heard, SMU dominates the legal market in Dallas.  Not only would you have more chance to explore your options IN THE REGION, but you would also have the advantage of not going highly into debt AS YOU START YOUR FAMILY.  SMU is a great school with proven viablility in Dallas, WUSTL is a great school as well, but not with proven viablility in the region in which the OP wants to practice plus it will be a lot cheaper.  

When they are losing jobs to Fordham grads, St. Johns students don't take much solace in their superior bar passage rates. Bar passage rates don't matter. If OP is smart enough to be in the top 15% percent required for BigLaw from SMU, he's not going to be the type that fails the bar.

Also, most good law schools don't teach "local" law. You really just learn how to apply a legal skillset to a given problem. You learn the local law over time once you start to practice.

Yes, SMU does well in Dallas. But it also floods the Dallas market with all their grads. Many of the students there will have the same ideas on getting Dallas BigLaw, thus allowing the firms to cherry-pick the best students. The people outside top 20% at schools like SMU are basically screwed in terms of landing that first job.

You are right about debt though. It's a factor that each person has to weigh.

73
All he said was that SMU does a better job of training students to pass the bar.  That's all he said.  It isn't idiotic.  He didn't say it's a better law school.

And you're right; SJU does a better job of training students to pass the NY bar than Fordham does (89% to 88%).  It doesn't matter how much higher Fordham is ranked, SJU still does a better job at bar passage.

He didn't say SMU was a better education, he said the students were more equiped to pass the bar and he is right.

It seems to me that SMU is training attourney's better equipped to pass the Texas bar and succeed in Texas, if not better educated attourney's overall.


(a) Looks clear to me that he did say SMU was better at educating and preparing lawyers

(b) Even if it were true that he was simply saying that SMU does a better job of preparing people for the specific task of passing the bar, how is this an argument for SMU being a superior choice? Are you arguing that St. Johns is a superior choice to Fordham because it has a higher bar passage rate in the same state?

74
UGA for sure.

75
Where should I go next fall? / Re: UT/Vandy/Cornell
« on: February 27, 2008, 12:20:12 AM »
Well, (a) you've only selected 3 firms, and (b) some of those associates may have graduated 40 years ago, and that wouldn't tell much about 2011 employment prospects.

But yeah, that's a pretty significant difference, nonetheless.

(a) I thought these were the 3 best Boston based firms on Vault, (b) the hiring partners normally select the new associates.

Maybe prospects have changed in the last few years though.

76
Where should I go next fall? / Re: UT/Vandy/Cornell
« on: February 27, 2008, 12:17:33 AM »
Well, (a) you've only selected 3 firms, and (b) some of those associates may have graduated 40 years ago, and that wouldn't tell much about 2011 employment prospects.

But yeah, that's a pretty significant difference, nonetheless.

(a) I thought these were the 3 best Boston based firms on Vault, (b) the hiring partners normally select the new associates.


77
If you look at the numbers, I think SMU still makes more sense

the schools have almost identical bar passage rates (SMU 88, WUSTL 90), but the big diference being....The Texas Bar is significantly harder than the Missouri Bar. Texas has 80% passage rate to Missouri's 88%.  WUSTL educations their students 2% higher than the state's average while SMU performs 8% better.  It seems to me that SMU is training attourney's better equipped to pass the Texas bar and succeed in Texas, if not better educated attourney's overall.

And regardless of the "options" of WUSTL, the fact is most graduates do indeed stay in Mizzou.  Also, 98% of all graduates have a job with a median of 85000 from SMU(admittedly 100000 from WUSTL).  But the fact that your wife has a pretty sucessful job in the area and if you would like to practice in Dallas, I dont think you should get scared about people saying that only the top SMU grads get the kind of jobs that they want.  Unless you hear that from a Dallas employer, then I think the numbers speak for themself.

The bar passage logic used by this poster is idiotic. By his logic, St. Johns does a better job of educating their students than Fordham does. By his logic, Florida CoasTTTTal does a better job of educating their students than Florida State.

More importantly, using this logic, OP should be at Baylor and not SMU.

Also foolish is his use of "employment" numbers. Anyone who knows about law school admissions knows that those numbers are pure puffery and only reflect the limited number of people who actually respond to the questionnaire.

In this case, the numbers do not at all speak for themselves.

78
Where should I go next fall? / Re: UT/Vandy/Cornell
« on: February 26, 2008, 11:55:43 PM »
The difference in elite placement in Boston really is an old-school smackdown:

Ropes and Gray- Boston
Cornell: 16
Vandy: 3

Goodwin Proctor- Boston
Cornell: 14
Vandy: 1

Bingham McCutchen- Boston
Cornell: 10
Vandy: 1

79
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Top 20 PT or
« on: February 26, 2008, 04:28:55 PM »
Well the choice is kind of obvious.  OSU is a sack of poo.  Everyone there is a gunner.  Don't give them your money.  Case is great for international law, but it is pricey and it is in Cleveland.  GW is in D.C. and is ranked higher, but I can see your point about four years of tuition instead of three.

In the end, take the best school of the three.  I say GW, then Case, then OSU a distant third.  If Case could throw some money at you, then consider them, but the benefits of studying international law in the nation's capital are probably worth it.

Go with George Washington.

Not sure what makes OSU a "sack of poo". By most accounts, it is a good law school.

80
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: New Dean at UVA
« on: February 26, 2008, 04:22:09 PM »
Check it-

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=4293

talk about a great resume . . . sheesh . . . sullivan and cromwell, MIT, Yale law, clerk for marshall,

Agreed. His resume is awesome.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14